jerryR34

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws. Peer Review.....................: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive Not interested in a Nobel, I already have my Prize..... and it had nothing to do with evolution. Also, In your estimation or belief, HOW are we here?..... is it from: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD) ? False dichotomy

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

Great point. We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory. Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

formless and void, darkness, deep, the waters...all things ancient men were afraid of and from which they needed God to protect them.

Very well said.

Now that is a good one LOL. Now I'm a YEB I'm curious why your not a YEB? No compelling evidence. Can you offer evidence? Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence. Please, if you have something novel I'd love to see it - no attacking. Thanks

Deleted

How is any child "illegitimate"? All children are conceived in the same way - no difference among them at all. Why are you disparaging children to try to make a point about a scientific theory with which you disagree? Sorry, that is a very poor and mean analogy. The point is that Darwin took credit for something that he didn't originate. He was not an honest man. How does that impact the veracity of the theory of evolution? There are many discoveries that happened at the same time independently. Research calculus.

How is any child "illegitimate"? All children are conceived in the same way - no difference among them at all. Why are you disparaging children to try to make a point about a scientific theory with which you disagree? Sorry, that is a very poor and mean analogy.

5th grade science. I'm not leaving out anything. You are positing a global flood. What variables could there be if the flood occurred at one time. Sedimentation follows certain principals, that is why the simple experiment I posited proves such a powerful point. Do some HEAVY Homework then comeback My whole point is it doesn't need to be heavy. Simple examples make the biblical flood fall apart. I'm not going to type a textbook here when a simple elementary school experiment will suffice in making a point. LOL, that experiment is a joke. I'm curious why you think that? Thanks

5th grade science. I'm not leaving out anything. You are positing a global flood. What variables could there be if the flood occurred at one time. Sedimentation follows certain principals, that is why the simple experiment I posited proves such a powerful point. Do some HEAVY Homework then comeback My whole point is it doesn't need to be heavy. Simple examples make the biblical flood fall apart. I'm not going to type a textbook here when a simple elementary school experiment will suffice in making a point. When you bring legitimate scholarly postulates to the table then we can talk. Thanks Please explain how my simple experiment does not match what hydrology would dictate in a cataclysmic event? If you can, I will go back to the books....

I would like to assign you some homework as well, but I'll be specific. Please read the book "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. I've read your book at least 2 times.

I beg to differ sir, it has everything to do with it Your response is why creation cannot be taught in science classes.

5th grade science. I'm not leaving out anything. You are positing a global flood. What variables could there be if the flood occurred at one time. Sedimentation follows certain principals, that is why the simple experiment I posited proves such a powerful point. Do some HEAVY Homework then comeback My whole point is it doesn't need to be heavy. Simple examples make the biblical flood fall apart. I'm not going to type a textbook here when a simple elementary school experiment will suffice in making a point.

How about some questions for your questions? 1. How did animals like penquins (flightless birds), Koalas (limited diet) etc that were not native to the middle east get to the ark? 2. Why did God promise not to destroy the world in a flood again? Why did he seem remorseful? did he make a mistake? 3. Do you believe that at least of 2 of every species, and their food could be housed on a 400 foot ark for the time it was afloat? 4. Do you believe that the physics that cause rainbows did not exist before the flood? (i.e. prismatic affect) 5. What good did it do to send out a bird if the ark had no means of steering or propulsion? What about all the civilizations that existed continuously before and after the flood?

You don't know my world view. I am mischaracterized here. That said, my world view does not impact physics, geology, hydrology, biology, etc nor does yours.

5th grade science. I'm not leaving out anything. You are positing a global flood. What variables could there be if the flood occurred at one time. Sedimentation follows certain principals, that is why the simple experiment I posited proves such a powerful point.

There are multiple refutations of Polystrate Fossils disproving the geologic column. I would hope you could Google them, but if not, at your request, I could post some links.

A flood does not support the geologic column in any way. There is no fossil evidence, or archaelogical evidence, or geologic evidence to support a flood. There are simple experiments that you could do in your front yard that should prove that to you. So you're saying there aren't any fossils?? Where did I say that? I said there is no fossil evidence to support a flood. A flood does not support the geologic column in any way. There is no fossil evidence, or archaelogical evidence, or geologic evidence to support a flood. There are simple experiments that you could do in your front yard that should prove that to you. "There are simple experiments that you could do in your front yard that should prove that to you." Take 144 similar sized pebbles and number 12 of each 1-12. Put the pebbles and dirt in a bucket with water and shake. the pebbles will be interspersed in the silt in no particular order. Next, do the same experiment, but put in some dirt, shake, but only put in the pebbles numbered 1. After the sediment has settled do the same, but only add the pebbles numbered 2. Repeat until all of the soil and pebbles are gone. You will have layers of soil with pebbles sorted based on the order they were dropped in the bucket. Bucket two is how fossils were laid down - in date order. This uniformity absolutely points to evolution and supports the geologic column.

A flood does not support the geologic column in any way. There is no fossil evidence, or archaelogical evidence, or geologic evidence to support a flood. There are simple experiments that you could do in your front yard that should prove that to you.

"modern science" overwhelmingly espouses evolution, so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Evolution isn't science. It is an untested hypothesis. Modern science and evolution aren't the same thing. Creation is not science either given its super-natural aspect. Should we leave both out? Could you read a Biology text and redact any of it that relies on evolution without having the text be meaningless?

deleted

No, I don't Agree. I do think Evolution and Billions of Years should not be taught in school "science" classes because there is ZERO Scientific Evidence to support it... That is a very intellectually dishonest statement. There are mountains of evidence that support evolution and old earth. You should just say that you disagree with the evidence rather than say it does not exist. Sorry, I'm not on here as often as I would like - I'll circle back and look at that thread. thanks.

"modern science" overwhelmingly espouses evolution, so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.

Why do you believe the Bible is concerned at all about science and scientific interpretation? I don't think it is. So, you agree, creation should not be taught in school science classes?